Journal of Traumatic Stress, Vol. 20, No. 4, August 2007, pp. 587–595 (

C

2007)

Personality Characteristics of Adult Survivors
of Childhood Trauma

Brian Allen

Department of Psychology, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA

Dean Lauterbach

Department of Psychology, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, MI

Lenore Terr (1991) proposed a framework for childhood trauma that distinguishes between single-
incident trauma (Type I) and repeated or prolonged trauma (Type II). Terr’s framework and data
collected from the National Comorbidity Survey (NCS) are used to examine differences in personality
between adult survivors of childhood Type I trauma, childhood Type II trauma, and a control group of
adults not traumatized as children. Groups were compared on five personality scales. Results indicate that
individuals in the trauma categories scored higher in neuroticism and openness to new experiences than
individuals in the control group. The Type I group was lower than the control group on interpersonal
dependency, whereas the Type II group scored higher than the control group on this measure.

A number of studies have found that persons who have

experienced childhood trauma are more likely to be diag-
nosed with a personality disorder in adulthood (Gladstone,
Parker, Wilhelm, Mitchell, & Austin, 1999; Herman,
Perry, & Van der Kolk, 1989). Borderline personality dis-
order, in particular, has been studied in depth and appears
to be a common disorder among adults with a history of
childhood sexual abuse (Landecker, 1992; Lubin, Johnson,
& Southwick, 1996). Studies utilizing Minnesota Mul-
tiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) profiles have
consistently found differences between adult survivors of
childhood sexual abuse and control groups (Gregg & Parks,
1995; Griffith, Myers, Cusick, & Tankersley, 1997). Al-
though the majority of this research has been done with
female victims, pathological MMPI-2 profiles have also
been observed in men with a history of childhood sex-

Portions of this paper were presented at the 20th annual conference of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, New Orleans, LA, November 2004.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to: Brian Allen, CAARE Diagnostic and Treatment Center, Department of Pediatrics, University of California, Davis
Children’s Hospital 3300 Stockton Blvd. Sacramento, CA 95820. E-mail: [e-mail].

C

2007 International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/jts.20195

ual abuse (Roys & Timms, 1995). Alterations in person-
ality have also been linked to other types of childhood
trauma as well, such as emotional abuse and neglect (Bierer
et al., 2003), physical abuse (Berkowitz, 2004), cancer
(Erickson & Steiner, 2001), witnessing murder or severe
injury (Perry & Daugherty, 1995), and experiencing an
earthquake (Scott, Knoth, Beltran-Quiones, & Gomez,
2003).

Others have pointed out that many traumatized chil-

dren do not develop personality disorders later in life
(Clarkin & Sanderson, 2000; Paris, 1998). This is not
meant to suggest that early traumatic experiences do not
influence personality. It is possible that childhood trauma
affects personality in more subtle (i.e., less pathological)
ways that nonetheless can have a profound impact on
later life. However, research examining the influence of

587

588

Allen and Lauterbach

childhood trauma on adult personality has focused almost
exclusively on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition- (DSM-IV ; American Psychiatric
Association [APA], 1994) based personality disorders. No
identified studies have sought to investigate the influence
of childhood trauma on personality traits irrespective of
a diagnosable personality disorder. However, it should be
noted that an investigation of personality traits does not
exclude those individuals diagnosed with personality dis-
orders. Indeed, associations between personality traits and
personality disorders have been reported (Deary, Peter,
Austin, & Gibson, 1998). Rather, the use of personality
traits allows for the detection of more subtle differences
that are not allowed by the use of a diagnostic dichotomy.
This study attempts to address this need by examining
differences in personality traits among persons experienc-
ing different types of childhood traumas.

This study utilized three elements of the Five-Factor

Model of Personality that were assessed as part of the Na-
tional Comorbidity Survey (NCS; Kessler, McGonagle,
Zhao, & Nelson, 1994), one of the most widely used frame-
works for describing personality traits. The model’s factors
are extremely broad and encompass a range of personal-
ity characteristics. The first factor, extroversion, describes
the individual’s level of gregariousness and assertiveness.
The second factor, neuroticism, assesses level of emotion-
ality. The last factor, openness to experiences, assesses level
of open-mindedness and imagination (John & Srivastava,
1999). In addition, this article examined locus of control
and interpersonal dependency.

Lenore Terr (1991) proposed a framework for classify-

ing childhood trauma according to the chronicity of the
trauma. Type I traumas are single occurrence incidents,
whereas Type II traumas involve prolonged or repeated
experience of the traumatic event. She asserted that spe-
cific psychiatric symptoms are characteristic of Type I and
Type II trauma and that greater chronicity of the trau-
matic event will yield more severe symptoms (i.e., dissoci-
ation and emotional numbing). Terr’s framework has been
supported by research conducted primarily with samples
of maltreated children. For instance, Kiser, Heston, Mill-
sap, and Pruitt (1991) studied a group of children who

had experienced physical and/or sexual abuse. They found
that children whose abusive experience was more chronic
tended to display increased internalizing symptoms (e.g.,
depression and schizophrenia), whereas children who had
experienced a single incident displayed more externalizing
problems. Terr has also opined that exposure to these dif-
fering trauma categories may yield distinctive personality
structures. Consistent with this notion, the chronicity of
trauma exposure is a risk factor for the latter emergence
and severity of personality disorders (Sansone, Sansone, &
Gaither, 2004; Yen et al., 2003).

Although Terr’s framework is widely cited, it is not uni-

formly accepted. Research suggests that individuals expe-
riencing different types of trauma (Type I vs. Type II) may
present with similar emotional symptoms (McCloskey &
Walker, 2000). In addition, Terr’s typology does not ad-
dress the potential impact of a combination of traumatic
events. It has been suggested that the cumulative impact
of Type I and Type II events may result in the most severe
symptoms and that a Type III category should be consid-
ered to denote the experience of a combination of Type I
and Type II traumas (Kira, 2001). This study investigates
the utility of Terr’s original conceptualization with respect
to the personality characteristics of individuals who experi-
enced different categories of childhood trauma. In keeping
with Terr’s theory, it is hypothesized that persons experi-
encing Type II traumas will experience significantly more
disruption in adult personality style than persons experi-
encing either Type I traumas or no trauma.

M E T H O D

Overview of National Comorbidity Survey

The National Comorbidity Survey (NCS; Kessler, 1990–
1992) is a nationally representative survey assessing for
the presence of a wide range of Axis I disorders based on
the DSM-III-R criteria (American Psychiatric Association,
1987). It utilized a two-phase design. The first phase con-
sisted of a diagnostic interview that was administered to
the entire sample (N

= 8,098). The second phase consisted

of a risk factor interview. Due to budgetary constraints,

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

Adult Personality and Childhood Trauma

589

the risk factor interview was administered to a subsample
(n

= 5,877). This subsample was composed of all Part 1

respondents aged 15–54, all older Part 1 respondents who
were positive on initial questions assessing one or more
diagnostic sections, and one-in-six random subsample of
all remaining Part 1 respondents.

Based on previous evidence that survey nonrespondents

have higher rates of psychiatric disorder than respondents,
a supplemental nonresponse survey was carried out. In this
supplemental survey, a random sample of initial nonre-
spondents was offered a financial incentive to complete a
short form of the diagnostic interview. A nonresponse ad-
justment weight was constructed for the main survey data
to compensate for this systematic nonresponse. A second
weight was used to adjust for variation in probabilities of
selection both within and between households. A third
weight was used to adjust the data to approximate the
national demographic characteristics.

Measures

Three of the five personality scales (neuroticism, extro-
version, and openness to experience) were composed of
items drawn from Goldberg’s (1992) brief Big Five per-
sonality measure and items created for the NCS. Items on
these three personality scales were rated on a 4-point Likert
scale with the following anchors: 1

= very, 2 = somewhat,

3

= a little, and 4 = not at all. The remaining two person-

ality scales (interpersonal dependency and locus of control)
were based on measures of related constructs (Hirschfeld,
1977; Levenson, 1973). To ease interpretation, all person-
ality scale items were reverse scored so that higher scores
corresponded with stronger endorsement of that trait.

1

A

higher score on the locus of control scale corresponds with
a more internal locus of control.

Neuroticism. Neuroticism was broadly defined to include
aspects of emotional stability. Level of this trait was assessed
by a 10-item unipolar scale. Participants read a list of words
that people use to describe themselves and indicated how

1

All personality items can be found in section L of the NCS interview.

well each word describes the way they generally are. The
following 10 trait descriptors were included on the scale:
(a) tense, (b) nervous, (c) temperamental, (d) irritable,
(e) envious, (f ) unstable, (g) discontented, (h) insecure,
(i) emotional, and (j) high strung. The mean item rating
was a 2.0, which is consistent with an item-level descrip-
tor of somewhat. Scores for these 10 items were summed
to yield a total neuroticism score (M

= 20.5, SD = 6.5,

range

= 10–40, α = .86).

Extroversion. Extroversion was broadly defined as the in-
dividual’s self-perception of his or her outgoing and socia-
ble qualities. Level of this trait was assessed by a 10-item
unipolar scale. Participants read a list of words that people
use to describe themselves and indicated how well each
word describes the way they generally are. The follow-
ing 10 trait descriptors were used on the scale: (a) outgo-
ing, (b) self-confident, (c) talkative, (d) lively, (e) sociable,
(f ) private, (g) passive, (h) shy, (i) quiet, and (j) easily em-
barrassed. Items f–j were reversed scored so that a higher
value represented more reported extroverted behavior. The
mean item rating was 2.9, which most resembles an item-
level descriptor of a little. Scores for these 10 items were
summed to yield a total extroversion score (M

= 29.0,

SD

= 5.4, range = 10–40, α = .77).

Openness to experience. Openness to experience was de-
fined as level of interest in the world and ability to think
creatively. Level of this trait was assessed by a 9-item unipo-
lar scale. The following nine trait descriptors were included
on the scale: (a) curious, (b) creative, (c) open-minded, (d)
imaginative, (e) artistic, (f ) clever, (g) thoughtful, (h) log-
ical, (i) perceptive. The mean item rating was 3.2, which
is most consistent with an item-level descriptor of a lit-
tle. Scores for these nine items were summed to yield a
total openness score (M

= 28.8, SD = 5.2, range = 9–36,

α = .83).

Interpersonal dependency. Interpersonal dependency was
broadly defined to include the individual’s self-perception
of independence and self-confidence. Level of this trait was
assessed by nine items from Hirschfeld’s (1977) measure
of interpersonal dependency. The following nine questions

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

590

Allen and Lauterbach

were asked of each respondent: (a) What people think of
me does not affect how I feel, (b) What other people say
does not bother me, (c) I find it difficult to say “no” to
people, (d) I do not need other people to make me feel
good, (e) I am quick to agree with the opinions expressed
by others, (f ) I would rather be a follower than a leader, (g)
In an argument, I give in easily, (h) I have a lot of trouble
making decisions by myself, (i) I am not confident about
my own judgment. Each item was rated on a 4-point scale
using the following descriptors: 1

= very true, 2 = somewhat

true, 3

= a little true, 4 = not true at all. Items c and e–

i were reverse scored. Thus, higher scores reflect fewer
independent and self-confident behaviors, or higher levels
of interpersonal dependency. The mean item rating was
2.2, which most closely resembles an item-level descriptor
of somewhat true. Scores for these nine items were summed
to yield a total interpersonal dependency score (M

= 19.8,

SD

= 6.5, range = 9–36, α = .82).

Locus of control. Locus of control was defined to in-
clude one’s perception of self-responsibility and self-
determination. Level of this trait was assessed by nine items
from Levenson’s (1973) measure of locus of control. The
following questions were asked of each respondent: (a) My
life is determined by my own actions, (b) When I make
plans, I almost always make them work, (c) When I get
what I want, it is usually because I worked hard for it, (d)
I am usually able to protect my own interests, (e) When I
get what I want, it is usually because I am lucky, (f ) Of-
ten, there is no way I can protect myself from bad luck,
(g) It is not always wise for me to plan too far ahead be-
cause many things turn out to be a matter of good or bad
fortune, (h) I believe that chance or luck plays an impor-
tant role in my life, (i) I feel like what happens in my life
is mostly determined by powerful people. Each item was
rated on a 4-point scale using the following descriptors:
1

= very true, 2 = somewhat true, 3 = a little true, 4 = not

true at all. Items a–d were reverse-scored so that a higher
score on this scale represents more self-responsible and self-
determined attitudes. The mean item rating on this scale is
3.4, which falls between the item-level descriptors of some-
what true and a little true. Scores for these nine items were

summed to yield a total locus of control score (M

= 30.4,

SD

= 5.0, range = 9–36, α = .79).

Trauma exposure. At the outset of the PTSD section, par-
ticipants were queried about the presence of the following
10 event categories: (a) direct combat experience in a war,
(b) life-threatening accident, (c) fire, flood, or natural dis-
aster, (d) witnessing someone being badly injured or killed,
(e) rape, (f ) sexual molestation, (g) serious physical attack
or assault, (h) physical abuse as a child, (i) seriously ne-
glected as a child, and (j) threatened with a weapon, held
captive, or kidnapped. Individuals who endorsed having
experienced rape (e) or sexual molestation (f ) were asked
to describe the event as a single occurrence or one that was
repeated. To enhance respondent comfort and accuracy of
reporting, respondents received a numbered listing of the
events. In all interviews, event type was referenced by a
number. As a result, participants did not have to verbal-
ize the type of trauma they had experienced. Because this
study examined trauma experienced before age 18, combat
experience was not used to determine group membership.

Childhood traumatic events classified as Type I include

severe accident, natural disasters, witnessing a death or
serious injury, single-incident rape, single-incident sexual
molestation, physical assault, and being threatened with
a weapon. Type II events include repeated rape, repeated
sexual molestation, physical abuse, and neglect. In keeping
with Terr’s assertion that prolonged or repeated exposure
to a trauma is predictive of more aberrant changes, all
individuals experiencing a Type II event were placed in this
category regardless of Type I trauma history. Respondents
who reported experiencing only Type I trauma(s), were
placed in the Type I category. Many multiply-traumatized
individuals are included in both trauma groups; categoriza-
tion is solely dependent on the experience of a prolonged or
repeated trauma. Table 1 provides a listing of the frequency
of occurrence of each event type. The most frequently
occurring types of incidents in the Type I group were
life-threatening accidents and witnessing someone badly
injured or killed. The most frequently occurring events
in the Type II group were physical abuse and sexual
molestation. Respondents denying the experience of a

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

Adult Personality and Childhood Trauma

591

Table 1. Types of Trauma Experienced by Each Trauma

Group

Group

Type of trauma

Type I

Type II

Life-threatening accident

573

139

Fire, flood, or natural disaster

543

134

Witnessed someone badly injured/killed

784

176

Rape

94

118

Sexual molestation

156

240

Seriously physically attacked or assaulted

272

113

Physical abuse

0

246

Neglect

0

164

Threatened with a weapon, held captive,
or kidnapped

453

122

Note. Type I trauma refers to severe accidents, natural disaster, witnessing
violence, single incident rape, single incident sexual molestation, serious
physical assault, and being threatened with a weapon or held captive. Type II
trauma refers to repeated rape, repeated sexual molestation, physical abuse,
and neglect during childhood.

childhood traumatic event were placed into a control
group.

Participants

The sample was composed of participants in the Part II
subsample (n

= 5,877). Participants were placed into one

of three categories based on their experience of trauma

Table 2. Demographics of the Groups and the Part II Sample of the

National Comorbidity Survey (NCS)

Characteristic

Type I

Type II

Control

NCS Part II

Ethnicity:
% European-American

77

78

75

76

Education M(SD)

12.9 (2.4)

12.3 (2.4)

12.6 (2.5)

12.6 (2.5)

Family income:
%

< $25,000

37

35

38

37

Age M (SD)

31.4 (10.6)

33.5 (10.3)

32.2(11.0)

33.2 (10.7)

Note. The Type I group consists of all respondents reporting at least one Type I trauma during childhood
and no Type II traumas. The Type II group consists of all respondents reporting the experience of at
least one Type II incident during childhood. The control group consists of respondents reporting no
trauma history during childhood. The NCS Part II group consists of all respondents in the Part II
sample of the NCS. Education and age are reported in years.

before the age of 18: Type I, Type II, or control. Par-
ticipants who did not report the age at which they were
traumatized or failed to complete one or more of the per-
sonality scales were omitted from the multivariate analysis
(n

= 4,351). Table 2 lists descriptive data for each group

as well as for the entire Part II subsample. Initial analy-
ses compared the three groups (Type I, Type II, control)
on ethnicity, age, education, and total family income be-
fore taxes. A series of ANOVAs were used to compare the
groups on age, education, and family income. Results re-
vealed a difference in age, F (2, 4739)

= 7.17, p < .05,

with the Type II group slightly older on average than
the Type I, t(1965)

= 3.78, p < .05 and control groups

t(3252)

= 2.46, p < .05. The groups also differed on years

of education, F (2, 4405)

= 10.81, p < .05, with the Type I

group displaying a minimally higher level of education than
the Type II, t(1964)

= 3.95, p < .05, and control groups,

t(4260)

= 4.1, p < .05. There were no observed differ-

ences between the groups on income, F (2, 4075)

= 2.44,

ns. A chi-square test was used to compare the three
groups on ethnic heritage. There were no significant differ-
ences between the three groups on ethnic heritage,

χ

2

(6,

N

= 4817) = 3.63, ns. The NCS interview allowed respon-

dents to not provide an answer to any given question. Of
those participants who chose to identify their ethnic group,
76% reported a European-American ethnic heritage.

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

592

Allen and Lauterbach

Design and Procedure

A 2 (Sex)

× 3 (Trauma Type) MANOVA was conducted

with each of the five personality scales as the dependent
variables. Weighted values were used as suggested by Kessler
et al. (1994). As previously discussed, these weights were
applied to control for systematic nonresponse rates, varia-
tions in the probabilities of being included in the survey,
and to approximate the national population. The Bon-
ferroni correction was used to control for test-wise alpha
inflation. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS,version 12.0) with the complex features module,
was used in the analysis of this data.

R E S U L T S

A 2 (Sex)

× 3 (Trauma Type) MANOVA was con-

ducted with each of the five personality scales as the
dependent variables. There were significant main effects
for group, F (10, 8682)

= 28.17, p < .001, η

2

= .06, and

sex F (5, 4341)

= 16.26, p < .001, η

2

= .02. These partial

eta-squared values reflect the proportion of total variability
attributable to a variable. Although there are significant dif-
ferences between group differences, only a small percentage
of the total variability is attributable to these variables. No
significant interaction effects emerged.

The groups differed significantly on neuroticism, F (2,

4345)

= 91.96, p < .001, η

2

= .04, openness to experience,

F (2,4345)

= 34.31, p < .001, η

2

= .02, and interpersonal

dependency, F (2,4345)

= 13.05, p < .001, η

2

= .01. The

Type I and Type II groups were significantly higher than
the control group on neuroticism and openness to expe-
rience (See Table 3). In addition, the Type II group was
significantly higher than the Type I group on neuroticism.
However, the Type I and Type II groups did not differ on
level of openness to experience. Last, the Type II group
scored significantly higher than the control group and the
Type I group on interpersonal dependency and the con-
trol group was significantly higher than the Type I group.
There was a significant main effect for sex. Women scored
significantly higher than men on the neuroticism and in-
terpersonal dependency scales.

D I S C U S S I O N

This study found that the experience of childhood trauma
is related to the personality traits of adult survivors. Indi-
viduals who had experienced any type of trauma (Type I or
Type II) as children reported higher levels of neuroticism
and openness to new experiences than individuals who had
not experienced trauma as children (control). This suggests
that child trauma victims, regardless of the type and dura-
tion of the trauma, are likely to be higher in traits such as
tension, nervousness, irritability, insecurity, and emotion-
ality than persons not victimized as children. In addition,
it suggests that child trauma victims are likely to be higher
in traits such as curiosity, creativity, openmindedness, and
cleverness. Research indicates that psychological disorders
such as depression and anxiety are frequently comorbid
with a diagnosis of PTSD (Brunello et al., 2001). Symp-
toms that are typical of depression and anxiety are captured
in the personality trait of neuroticism. Therefore, it is not
altogether surprising that this study found individuals with
a history of trauma reported elevated levels of neuroticism
compared to nontraumatized individuals.

At first blush, these findings might suggest both positive

and negative consequences associated with childhood vic-
timization. Elevations in neuroticism and openness might
constitute negative and positive consequences respectively.
However, as noted by Bak (2005) this may not be the
case if this openness increases the risk for revictimization.
Having a history of child sexual abuse has been found to
increase the probability that the victim will engage in risky
behaviors, which, in turn, increases the chance that fu-
ture victimizations will occur. For example, women who
were abused in childhood have been found to see greater
benefits and lower risks to illegal drug use, heavy drink-
ing, and risky sexual behaviors (Smith, Davis, & Fricker-
Elhai, 2004). Victims also reported that they expected to
engage in these behaviors in the future at a higher rate
than nonvictims. Similarly, Wyatt et al. (1992) found
that women with a history of unwanted childhood and
adult sexual experiences were more likely to have multi-
ple sexual partners and sexual relationships of a shorter
duration.

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

Adult Personality and Childhood Trauma

593

Table 3. Levels of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Interpersonal Dependency, and Locus

of Control Within Each Group

Group

Type I (n

= 1,372)

Type II (n

= 417) Control (n = 2,562) Total (n = 4,351

1

)

Personality
trait

Sex

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

M

SD

Neuroticism

Male

19.13

5.43

21.35

6.48

17.38

5.03

18.33

5.41

Female

20.11

5.44

21.05

6.10

18.23

5.47

19.03

5.65

Total

19.53

a

5.45

21.15

b

6.22

17.86

c

5.30

18.70

5.55

Extraversion

Male

28.70

5.20

27.87

5.96

28.46

4.82

28.52

5.06

Female

28.82

5.12

28.20

4.64

28.83

4.98

28.75

4.97

Total

28.75

a

5.17

28.09

a

5.09

28.67

a

4.91

28.64

5.01

Openness

Male

28.86

4.04

28.49

5.06

27.33

5.28

28.01

4.87

Female

28.23

4.62

28.42

4.63

27.25

4.68

27.64

4.69

Total

28.61

a

4.29

28.44

a

4.76

27.29

b

4.95

27.82

4.78

Interpersonal dependency

Male

17.69

3.91

19.44

6.10

18.21

4.35

18.08

4.34

Female

19.52

4.59

20.44

5.04

19.38

4.49

19.55

4.59

Total

18.42

a

4.29

20.12

b

5.41

18.87

c

4.46

18.85

4.53

Locus of control

Male

30.37

3.58

29.73

3.99

29.90

3.77

30.08

3.72

Female

30.22

3.20

30.07

3.78

30.36

3.30

30.29

3.34

Total

30.31

a

3.43

29.96

a

3.85

30.16

a

3.52

30.19

3.53

Note. Row values with the same subscript did not differ.

1

Persons for whom accurate data on age of trauma was not available could not be classified. Consequently, they were omitted from all analyses. In addition,

persons with missing data on one or more of the personality measures were omitted.

Koss and Dinero (1989) in a study examining risk fac-

tors for sexual victimization arrived at a very similar set
of findings. These authors found that women who were
sexually victimized had more permissive attitudes about
sexual behaviors, consumed larger quantities of alcohol
more frequently, and reported a higher number of sexual
partners than nonvictimized women. In addition, partici-
pation in these behaviors made these women more vulner-
able to future sexual assaults. Thus, the personality style
characteristic of child trauma victims may help explain the
phenomenon of revictimization.

Persons in the Type I group displayed less interper-

sonal dependency than did persons in the Type II or
control groups. Thus, this group might be character-
ized as more independent and self-confident. They are
less likely to let other’s opinions sway their decisions,
less likely to need others to make them feel good, and
they are more able to make personal decisions. This
suggests that individuals who experience short-term or

single-blow trauma may become more self-sufficient. Al-
though it is of course impossible to make causal state-
ments based on retrospective, cross-sectional data, these
findings point to the possibility that some level of posttrau-
matic growth may occur following some types of childhood
trauma.

Results from this study support the conclusion that

childhood trauma is related to personality traits present in
adulthood. In addition, this study represents one of the
first investigations of the effect of childhood trauma on
adult personality traits irrespective of the presence or ab-
sence of a diagnosed personality disorder. A current move-
ment in the field of clinical psychology, with respect to
psychiatric disorders, is the promotion of a dimensional
diagnostic system of personality (Malik & Beutler, 2002).
This study demonstrates that childhood trauma may result
in personality alterations that are better conceptualized on
a continuum as opposed to a taxonomic present/absent
diagnosis.

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

594

Allen and Lauterbach

This study is limited by the retrospective, self-report de-

sign employed. Participants reported their history of child-
hood trauma and independent verification of these his-
tories was not possible. In addition, the definitions of the
traumas were not sufficiently detailed. For example, partici-
pants were asked if they had experienced physical abuse as a
child, but what exactly constitutes physical abuse is open to
interpretation (e.g., what qualifies as severe corporal pun-
ishment vs. mild physical abuse). An additional limitation
of this study was that the personality questionnaires used
were less than ideal measures of the underlying personal-
ity traits characteristic of the Five-Factor Model. Although
each scale showed acceptable reliability and face validity,
the limited scale length raises concerns about the content
validity (Haynes, Richard, & Kubany, 1995). A final lim-
itation of this study is imbedded in Terr’s (1991) trauma
classification system. In this study, the Type I trauma group
consisted of a persons experiencing a wide range of poten-
tially traumatic events whereas the Type II group consisted
only of persons who had experienced some form of mal-
treatment. Thus, inherent in this classification system is a
confound between trauma duration and trauma type (in-
terpersonal trauma vs. noninterpersonal trauma).

Despite these limitations, this study is an initial first step

toward evaluating the personality style of adult survivors
of childhood trauma. Future research should employ
more sophisticated measures of personality traits, such
as the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa &
McCrae, 1992), and better define the types of trauma un-
der study. Through this research it may be possible to better
serve clients in therapy and better understand the influence
of childhood trauma on the personality characteristics of
adult survivors.

R E F E R E N C E S

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC:
Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bak, C. (2005). Childhood sexual abuse and adult revictimization:

A review of the literature.Unpublished manuscript.

Berkowitz, N. F. (2004). Wendy Wall: In the wake of childhood

trauma. Brief Treatment and Crisis Intervention, 4, 377–387.

Bierer, L. M., Yehuda, R., Schmeidler, J., Mitropoulou, V., New,

A. S., Silverman, J. M., et al. (2003). Abuse and neglect in
childhood: Relationship to personality disorder diagnoses. CNS
Spectrums, 8, 737–754.

Brunello, N., Davidson, J. R. T., Deahl, M., Kessler, R. C.,

Mendelwicz, J., Racagni, G., et al. (2001). Posttraumatic stress
disorder: Diagnosis and epidemiology, comorbidity and social
consequences, biology and treatment. Neuropsychobiology, 43,
150–162.

Clarkin, J. F., & Sanderson, C. (2000). Personality disorders. In M.

Herson & A. S. Bellack (Eds.), Psychopathology in adulthood
(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Professional manual: Revised

NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.

Deary, I. J., Peter, A., Austin, E., & Gibson, G. (1998). Personality

traits and personality disorders. British Journal of Psychology, 89,
647–661.

Erickson, S. J., & Steiner, H. (2001). Trauma and personality cor-

relates in long-term pediatric cancer survivors. Child Psychiatry
and Human Development, 31, 195–213.

Gladstone, G., Parker, G., Wilhelm, K., Mitchell, P., & Austin,

M.-P. (1999). Characteristics of depressed patients who report
childhood sexual abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156,
431–437.

Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the

Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26–
42.

Gregg, G. R., & Parks, E. D. (1995). Selected Minnesota Multipha-

sic Personality Inventory-2 scales for identifying women with a
history of sexual abuse. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
183, 53–56.

Griffith, P. L., Myers, R. W., Cusick, G. M., & Tankersley, M. J.

(1997). MMPI-2 profiles of women differing in sexual abuse
history and sexual orientation. Journal of Clinical Psychology,
53, 791–800.

Haynes, S. N., Richard, D. C. S., & Kubany, E. S. (1995). Content

validity in psychological assessment: A functional approach to
concepts and methods [Special issue]. Psychological Assessment,
7, 238–247.

Herman, J. L., Perry, J. C., & Van der Kolk, B. A. (1989). Childhood

trauma in borderline personality disorder. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 146, 490–495.

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.

Adult Personality and Childhood Trauma

595

Hirschfeld, R. M. (1977). A measure of interpersonal dependency.

Journal of Personality Assessment, 41, 610–618.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five Trait taxon-

omy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L.
A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (2nd ed.; pp. 102–138): New York: Guilford Press.

Kessler, R. C. (2002). National Comorbidity Survey, 1990–1992

conducted by University of Michigan, Survey Research Cen-
ter (2nd ICPSR ed.) [Computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-
University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

Kessler, R. C., McGonagle, K. A., Zhao, S., & Nelson, C. B. (1994).

Lifetime and 12-month prevalence of DSM-III-R psychiatric
disorders in the United States: Results from the National Co-
morbidity Study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 51, 8–19.

Kira, I. A. (2001). Taxonomy of trauma and trauma assessment.

Traumatology, 7(2), 81–95.

Kiser, L. J., Heston, J., Millsap, P. A., & Pruitt, D. B. (1991). Physical

and sexual abuse in childhood: Relationship with post-traumatic
stress disorder. Journal of the American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 30, 776–783.

Koss, M. P., & Dinero, T. E. (1989). Discriminant analysis of risk

factors for sexual victimization among a national sample of college
women. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 57, 242–
250.

Landecker, H. (1992). The role of childhood sexual trauma in the

etiology of borderline personality disorder: Considerations for
diagnosis and treatment. Psychotherapy, 29, 234–242.

Levenson, H. (1973). Multidimensional locus of control in psychi-

atric patients. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 41,
397–404.

Lubin, H., Johnson, D. R., & Southwick, S. M. (1996). Impact

of childhood abuse on adult psychopathology: A case report.
Dissociation, 9, 134–139.

Malik, M. L., & Beutler, L. E. (2002). The emergence of dissatis-

faction with the DSM. In L. E. Beutler & M. L. Malik (Eds.),
Rethinking the DSM: A psychological perspective (pp. 3–15):
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

McCloskey, L. A., & Walker, M. (2000). Posttraumatic stress in chil-

dren exposed to family violence and single-event trauma. Journal
of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry,
39, 108–115.

Paris, J. (1998). Does childhood trauma cause personality disorders

in adults? Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 148–153.

Perry, O. E., & Daugherty, T. K. (1995). Trait anxiety of college

males who witnessed murder or injury as a child. College Student
Journal, 29, 243–245.

Roys, D. T., & Timms, R. J. (1995). Personality profiles of

adult males sexually molested by their maternal caregivers: Pre-
liminary findings. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 4(4), 63–
77.

Sansone, R. A., Sansone, L. A., & Gaither, G. A. (2004). Multiple

types of childhood trauma and borderline personality symptoma-
tology among a sample of diabetic patients. Traumatology, 10,
257–266.

Scott, R. L., Knoth, R. L., Beltran-Quiones, M., & Gomez, N.

(2003). Assessment of psychological functioning in adolescent
earthquake victims in Colombia using the MMPI-A. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 16, 49–57.

Smith, D. W., Davis, J. L., & Fricker-Elhai, A. E. (2004). How

does trauma beget trauma? Cognitions about risk in women
with abuse histories. Child Maltreatment: Journal of the Amer-
ican Professional Society on the Abuse of Children, 9, 292–
303.

Terr, L. C. (1991). Childhood traumas: An outline and overview.

American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 10–20.

Wyatt, G. E., Guthrie, D., & Notgrass, C. M. (1992). Differential

effects of women’s child sexual abuse and subsequent sexual re-
victimization. Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology, 60,
167–173.

Yen, S., Shea, M. T., Pagano, M. E., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M.,

McGlashan, T. H., et al. (2003). Axis I and Axis II disorders
as predictors of prospective suicide attempts: Findings from the
Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 375–381.

Journal of Traumatic Stress DOI 10.1002/jts. Published on behalf of the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies.